religions
Article
Theodicy,UndeservedSuff
ering,andCompassionate
Solidarity:AnInterdisciplinaryReadingofHwang Sok-Yong’s TheGuest
YoungHoonKim
GraduateSchoolofTheology,SogangUniversity,Seoul04107,Korea;yhkimsj@gmail.com
Received:3August2020;Accepted:9September2020;Published:10September2020
Abstract: TheauthorexplorestheologicalquestionsregardingtheKoreannovelistHwangSok-yong’s TheGuest frominterdisciplinaryperspectives.Thispaperanalyzesthenovelinrelationtotheemotional complexof han asunderstoodinKorean minjung theology,thepoliticaltheologyofJohannBaptist Metz,andIgnacioEllacuría’sliberationtheology.DrawingupontheperspectivesofKorean,German, andLatinAmericanscholars,thisapproachinvitesustoconstructadiscourseoftheodicyinafresh light,toreachadeeperleveloftheodicalengagementwiththeuniversalproblemofsuffering,andto nurturethecourageofhopeforhumanbeingsintoday’sstressedworld.Contemplatingtheconcrete depictionofhumansufferingin TheGuest,thepaperinvitesreaderstodeepentheirunderstandingof Godintermsof minjung theology’sthrustofresolvingthepainfulfeelingsof han oftheoppressed, Metz’sinsightofsufferinguntoGodasasacramentalencounterwithGod,andEllacuría’sideaof givingwitnesstoGod’spoweroftheresurrectionineschatologicalhope.Thepaperconcludesthat theimmensityoftoday’shumansufferingasksforthatcompassionatesolidaritywiththecrucified todaywhichcangeneratehopeinthecontemporarymilieu.
Keywords: han;hope;Hwang-sokYong;liberationtheology; minjung theology;politicaltheology; TheGuest;theodicy
1.Introduction
InaGeneralAudience,PopeFrancisearnestlyinvitedallthepeopleofGodtoprayforan inter-KoreansummitontheoccasionofthehistoricmeetingbetweenMoonJae-in,thepresidentof theRepublicofKorea,andKimJong-un,theleaderoftheDemocraticPeople’sRepublicofKorea (PopeFrancis 2018).ThePopeprayedwithallthepeopleofGodinthisshortappealforKorea“to buildabetterfuture”and“tohavethecourageofhope”thatis“forthegoodofall.”Asthisarticle wasbeingwritten,thetensionontheKoreanPeninsulawasstillincreasingduetosociopolitical uncertainties,justasithadbeenforseventyyearssincetheKoreanWarin1950.“Asthispeculiar situationhascontinuedfor60years,SouthKoreanshavereluctantlybecomeaccustomedtoatautand contradictorysensationofindifferenceandtension”(Han 2017).Ofcourse,manypeoplealloverthe worldneed“thecourageofhope.”BothpersonalandcollectivesufferingisrifeinAfghanistan,Iraq, Palestine,Syria,andmanyotherplaces.InthemidstoftheCOVID-19pandemic,thevictimsofwar areparticularlyvulnerabletobeingtreatedunjustly.Wearealltemptedtobecomeaccustomedtothe sufferingofothers,comfortingthemwithcheaptheologicalnotions,orwesimplyturnoureyesaway. PopeFrancisthusspeaksof“theglobalizationofindifference”:weforget“howtoweep”and“howto experiencecompassion—sufferingwithothers”(PopeFrancis 2013a).Asaspecificexampleofthe courageofhopeinthemidstofhumansuffering,thisarticlefocusesonthepainexperiencedinthe KoreanWarofthe1950sasrecountedinthe2001Koreannovel TheGuest
WeexplorethisthemeinthenovelintermsoftheKoreanpreoccupationwiththeemotional complexof han asunderstoodinKorean minjung theology.ThecriticalreflectionsoftheGerman theologianJohannBaptistMetzalsoshedlightontheurgenttheologicaltaskofaddressingthe universalproblemofsuffering,andhisreflectionsarehelpfulforunderstandingthereligiousthrust ofthenovel.HehassaidaboutAuschwitz,“TimeandagainsincethenIhaveaskedmyselfwhy theologypaidsolittleattentiontohumansufferingandcatastrophe”(Metz 1997,p.33).Applying hisquestiontotheimmensehumansufferinginourownage,thefollowingquestionarises:How canwedotheologywithouttakingintoaccounttheparticularhistoricalrealitiesinwhichGodseems tobesofarfromhumansuffering?Borrowinghisconceptof“sufferinguntoGod”,weusethis Koreannovelasaconcreteexampleofhowaninsightfulauthorreflectsonthequestionofhowwe canbedrawnintoothers’sufferingandtransformedincompassionatesolidarity.TheLatinAmerican liberationtheologianIgnacioEllacuría’sinsightfuldiscussionofacademiccollaborationinthelightof thecrucifiedineveryagelikewiseelucidatestoday’staskoftheologyinawaythatispertinenttoan understandingofthenovel.Inhiswords,“IfinLatinAmericaandinEurope,inSanSalvadorand inDeusto,theuniversitieslistentoandgatherupthesufferingsandhopesofacrucifiedhumanity, thensolidaritybetweentheuniversities,andthroughthemcanbeestablished,aboveallasolidarity amongpeoplesandamongthehumanbeingsofthisworld”(SobrinoandEllacuría 1990,pp.172–73). TheGuest wellexemplifieshowwecandaretocooperatewithoneanothertobuildsolidaritywith thecrucified.
Theoverallworldviewof TheGuest isbasedonthefactthatthesufferingoftheKoreanWarhas beencontinuinginvictimizedpersonsupuntilthepresent.InthecontextofaKoreanshamanicritual thatbringstolightghosts’memoriesoftheirsuffering,thenovelunderstandshumansufferingasan unjustexperience.Inthecourseoftheritual,thatsufferingisidentified,resolved,andreconciled.Bya theologicalreadingof TheGuest,thepresentauthorexploresthetextinrelationtoKorean minjung theology,Metz’spoliticaltheology,andEllacuría’sliberationtheology.Theauthordoesnotintend toapplyMetz’sandEllacuría’stheologiestotheKoreancontextfromaone-wayperspectivebut rathertoexplorethemconcurrently.Insum, minjung theologyemphasizesthecryoftheoppressed forjustice,acrythatcanleadeithertohatredortosolidarity.MetzinvitesalltoacceptChristandto participateinChrist’ssolidaritywiththeoppressed,withinwhichsolidarityGod’spresenceishidden. LatinAmericanliberationtheologystresseseschatologicalhopetodecrucifytheoppressedthroughthe concretizationofChristianwitness.Theseideasworktogethertoilluminate TheGuest intermsoftheir particularperspectivesonhumansuffering.Thisinterdisciplinaryreadingofthenovelcancreatea privilegedperspectiveforatheologicalexplorationoftheuniversalproblemofsufferingintheworld. IthasbeensaidthatforMetz“thecontactwiththerealityandthetheologyofLatinAmerica”enriched histheologizing.Thatcontactprovidedthehermeneuticalkeyofthe“optionforallthosewhosuffer”, embracingwhichoptiondeepenedforMetz“thewebofconnectionsbetweenLatinAmericanand Germany”(Prinz 2007,pp.84–85).ThepresentpaperpursuesthewebofconnectionsbetweenKorea, Germany,andLatinAmericainsearchofmutuallearningwiththeaimofnurturingthecourageof hopeforabetterfuture.
2.God,Too,HasSinned:TheologicalReadingof TheGuest
HwangSok-yong’s TheGuest isbasedonatruestory,thefifty-daynightmareexperiencedby 35,000SinchoncitizensofHwanghaeProvince,NorthKorea,whowerecategorizedbyNorthKorean ChristiansascommunistsduringtheKoreanWar.“Thoughaworkoffiction,”ithasbeensaidthat “TheGuest gathersempiricalvalidationfortheversionofSinchonitoffersbyemployingseveralof thestrategiesassociatedwith‘documentarynovels’”(Ryu 2015,p.641).One-fourthofthetotal populationofSinchon,includinginnocentwomenandchildren,weretorturedandkilledbycrusading Christiansofthetownduringthosefiftydays.Rev.YuTae-yeong,thereal-lifemodelforthemain character,RyuYosop,hascommentedthat“it’struethattheNorthKoreanstateoverlypublicizes Sinchon,butconsideringtheconditionsofthetime,Ithinkthiswastherightmove”(Ryu 2015,p.
657).However,inanotewithin TheGuest,HwangSok-yongpointsoutthat,justaswhenKoreans identifiedsmallpoxasaWesterndisease,referringtoitasa“guest”andholdingshamanicexorcisms togetridofit,likewiseheidentifiesChristianityandcommunismasWesternideologiesthatcause disasterandsohecallsthem“guests.”Hestatesthatinthiswayheseekstorevealthetruthofboth Christianityandcommunism,reconcileWesternandKoreanideologies,andbringtogetherNorth KoreanChristiansandcommunists(Hwang 2005,p.9).Inotherwords,hehopestoreconcilethe mutualothernessofthepastandthepresent,thelivingandthedead,and,mostofall,thecategoriesof indigenousandWesternbyexaminingtheKoreanWarof1950.
RyuYosop(Joseph),themaincharacterof TheGuest,isanAmericanPresbyterianpastorwho visitsNorthKoreasoonafterthedeathofhisbrother,Yohan(Johann),whohadcommittedacrime duringthe1950massacreandimmigratedtotheUnitedStates.YosopgoestoNorthKoreanotonlyto buryYohan’sashesintheirhometownofSinchonbutalsotoapologizetothevictimsandtheirfamilies forhisbrother’scrime.DuringYosop’sjourney,heencountersaseriesofghostsofthosewhowere killedbyYohanaswellasthesurvivingvictims.Theauthorrevealsthispainfulhistoryinorderto makereconciliationpossible.Bybringingtolifethevoicesofthevictimswhoweretorturedandkilled bytheirneighbors,hisnovelrecountsthewholetragicepisodeandinvitesreaderstounderstandwhat happenedintheKoreanWar.Thewriterofthepresentpaperaimstoexplore TheGuest throughthe lensofrememberingthesufferingofthattragedywhileatthesametimebeingsoboldastoofferhope forreconciliationbetweenthevictimsandperpetrators.
TheGuest isanarrativeofmemoriesofsuffering.Yosopconfrontstwokindsofmemory.Oneis public,whiletheotherisprivate.Theformeristheofficialpublicrepresentationofeventsasdistorted bycommunistideology.Thelatteristhesharp-edgedtruthofthepersonallylivedexperiencesoffemale victims.Hwanggivesexpressiontotheirexperiencesinandthroughtheshamanicritualinwhichthe voicesofthedeadvictimsarebroughttolifeandthelivingperpetratorscanrememberwhattheydid inawaythateventuallyleadstoreconciliation.Astheauthorhimselfsays,“Thistwelve-chapternovel ismodeledaftertheChinogwiexorcismofHwanghaeProvince.Theritualconsistsoftwelveseparate rounds.Asisthecaseduringanactualexorcism,thedeadandthelivingsimultaneouslycrossand recrosstheboundariesbetweenpastandpresent,appearingatwhatseemlikerandomintervalsto shareeachoftheirstoriesandmemories”(Hwang 2005,p.7).ThesescarsoftheKoreanWarrunso deepforboththelivingandthedeadthattheactofrevivingthememoryofthesufferingisagreat challengetothem.
Atthebeginningofthestory,Yosopgivespoeticexpressiontohisunconsciousreluctancetorecall thememoriesofhishometown:
ThemomentheutteredCh’ansaemgol,Yosoprealizedthatsomefortyyearshadpassedsince he’dlastmentionedthenameofhishometown,Ch’ansaemgol.Thewordstartedoutwith thescentofamountainberry,lingeringatthetipofone’stongue—butthenthefragrance suddenlyturnedintothestenchofrottingfish.Itwasasifablobofblackpainthadbeen dumpedonawatercolorfilledwithtender,pale-greenleaves,thedarknessslowlyseeping outwardtowardstheedges.(Hwang 2005,p.15)
Forhispart,whilehewasalive,Yosop’sbrotherYohanhardlyeverspokeofthepast.Whenhe heardthatYosopwashopingonedaytovisitNorthKorea,hewassuspiciousofhimandtriedto convincehimnottogo.“DoyouthinkitlikelythatGodwillallowyoutogobacktoNorthKorea?” (Hwang 2005,p.15).YohanhadevenresistedYosop’sinvitationtopraytoGodforforgivenesssothat thedeadcouldhavepeace.Yohanangrilyshoutsathim,“WhyshouldIbegforforgiveness?We wereCrusaders—theRedswerethesonsofLucifer!ThehordesofSatan!IwasonthesideofMichael thearchangel,andthosebastardswerethebeastsoftheApocalypse!Evennow,ifourLordwereto commandit,Iwouldfightthosedevils!”(Hwang 2005,p.24).DuringYosop’sjourneyinNorthKorea, too,thissortofhostilereluctancetoconfrontthepastcontinues.Yosop’snephew,Tanyol,whohad remainedinCh’ansaemgol,criesout,“Howdareyoushowupnow,searchingforyourfamily!Doyou haveanyideahowhardit’sbeenforus,justtolivefromdaytoday?”(Hwang 2005,p.87).
However,thevoicesofghostsfromhisboyhoodremindYosopthattheabsenceofmemorycannot erasethehurtfromthebrutaleventembeddedinthedepthsoftheheart.“Eventhen,though,evenif nobodyelseremembers,it’sstillthere,deepdowninyourheartofhearts”(Hwang 2005,p.205).In The Guest,theghostsofthemurderersandtheirvictimsareeverywhere,tellingtheirstories.Sometimes, theyplayanimportantroleintheplotasthemainprotagonists,whileYosopseemstobeabystander listeningtotheirvoicesandpausingforreflection.Theghostsofthedeadshowtheirwillingnessto discoursewiththeliving,bothvictimsandperpetrators:“Thethingsyoudoinlife,thegoodandthe bad,maybedissolvedwhenyoudie,butweshouldstillgooverwhatreallyhappenedbeforewe leave”(Hwang 2005,p.179).Ithasbeensaidoftheroleoftheghoststhat“Ratherthanservingas theultimatebarriertothe‘truepast,’deathistransformedintotheultimateguaranteeoftestimonial truthfulness.Sinceghostsspeakfrombeyondthegrave,theirutterancesareseenasbeingfreeof motivationsorfailingsalltoohuman-faultymemory,aswellaspolitical,ideological,andlibidinal investments”(Ryu 2015,p.648).Theghosts’memoriesofthesufferingconnectinanarrativeof thesufferingthatcreatesthewholefabricofaweboflife,wherethevariousfirst-personstoriesare interwovenlikewarpandwoof.
TheGuest raisesaseriousquestionaboutGodandreligion.Itrecountsthestoryofhowcrusading NorthKoreanChristiansrationalizedtheirbehavior,becamemorallydepraved,andfinallyfell intoreligiousmadness.Thinkingofthemassacre,Yohan’swifespeaksblasphemy:“God,too, hassinned,that’swhatIusedtothink.Helookeddownonthisblazinghell,andheremainedsilent” (Hwang 2005,p.142).Herwordsshowthat,asoneofthevictims,sheisstuckinasin-centered theologyandaconceptofGodastheKinginHeavenwho“lookeddownonthisblazinghell,andhe remainedsilent.” TheGuest alsochallengesthereaderwithYohan’sperilousprayerthatNorthKorean Christiansprayedbeforekillingcommunists:
OurFatherinHeaven,wehaveguardedourfaithundertheoppressionoftheCommunists, theenemyoftheHolyGhost.ThouhasttoldustowearthearmorofGod,tobecomestrong sothatwecanfightagainsttheschemingdesignsofthedevil.Thouhastshownusthat thebattlewewageisnotabattleoffleshandbloodbutabattleforsacredserviceand divinepower,abattleagainsttherulersofthedarkworld,againstSatan,thatevilspirit. TheonlywaywewillwinthiswaristorelyuponthepowerofGodandtoprepareourselves withtheweaponsofGod.TheCrusadersoffreedomarejustaroundthecorner,comingto liberateourbrothersinfaith,butthearmyofSatancontinuestothreatenus.LetMichael, theArchangel,comeamongusandgrantusthewisdomandcouragethatwasoncebestowed uponJoshuaandDavid.Theprayercomplete,theyallraisetheirheads.Eachyoungman, likeoneenvelopedbytheflamesoftheHolyGhost,burnswithhatredandabhorrence—for Satanhimself.(Hwang 2005,pp.186–87)
Basedonadichotomybetweengoodandevil,thisprayerreinforcestheChristians’abhorrenceofthe communistsandrationalizeskillingthem.Itshowshowhumanmadnesscancontaminatefaithand howreligion,asadangerousanddistortedideology,contributedtothemassacre.WhenYohanand hiscompanionChristianskilledcommunists,theydidsointhenameofGod’spunishment.“Allthis ispunishment,raineddownuponyoubyourGod”(Hwang 2005,p.195).Theythoughtoftheir commitmenttothekillingasanexpressionofGod’spunishment,andthatkindofthinkingempowered theircommitment.Muchworse,asYohanadmits,theyhadlostallsenseofreality:“Itwasnolonger theLord’sCrusade.WewerenolongerfightingtooverthrowSatan.Wehavebeentested,Ithought tomyself,andwehavebeenfoundwanting.Ourfaithwascorrupted.MycomradesandI—we’d becometheendlessdays,dayswithoutlight.Whatdoesthatmean,youask?Weweresickandtiredof living.Attheleastprovocation,wewouldspitout,Fuckit,andkillwhoeverhappenedtobeinvolved” (Hwang 2005,p.222).Theywereswallowedupintotheviolencebytheirownmadness.
Fromatheologicalpointofview,isitenoughtoknowthefactsofthishistoricaleventandthe painofthepast?Whatmessageshouldtheologydelivertothosewhoareinsuchahopelessstate? Memoryofthepastandhopeforthefuturegohandinhand.Letmerevisit TheGuest fromthe
balancedpointofviewofmemoryandhope.ThenovelrecountsYosop’srecollectionoffriendship withtwocommunistgirlsfromhischildhoodduringtheKoreanWar.Hehelpsthemhidefrom thesecurityguardsinthevillageandtheybecomefriends,buteventuallytheyarekilledbyYohan. Inthecourseofbuildingafriendshipwiththem,Yosopsingsahymntothem:“ThisismyFather’s world:Irestmeinthethoughtofrocksandtrees,ofskiesandseas;Hishandthewonderswrought” (Hwang 2005,p.210).Thetwogirlsplaytheviolinforhim,andherecallsthemovementsofhisheart ashelistened:“Theviolinseemedtosobmorethaneveratthecrescendo,andthesong’smelody leftmewithalong,lingeringaftertaste.Myfaceburned,mythroatsoared,and,outoftheblue, tearsgushedoutofmyeyes.Sniffling,Iwipedmyfacewithmysleeve”(Hwang 2005,p.212).Hegoes ontostatehishopefulvisionofasharedrestorationofhumanity:“Ah,suddenly,anentirelydifferent worldwasopeningbeforemyeyes.Eachofusmusthavebeendeepinourownthoughts;noone saidaword”(Hwang 2005,p.212).Inthisepisode,theauthorofthenovelpresentsaneschatological hopeofChristiansandcommunistslivingtogether.TheghostofSunnam,whodiedatYohan’s hands,remindsYosopofthishope.“Therearen’tanysidesoverthere—nomysideagainstyourside” (Hwang 2005,p.28).Muchlater,attheveryendofthenovel, TheGuest concludesitsstorywithjoy andhopeinacelebrationoftheshamansinginganddancingwiththeghosts.“Beholdtoday’sfeast, seeourdevotion,theghost[s]ofthisland,theghost[s]ofthishouse,eatyourfill,andknowwhentobe silent.Fillyourbellies,quenchyourthirst,eatyourfillandpackupwhat’sleft—takeitallwithyou, womenonyourheads,takeitallwithyou,servantsinyouraprons—acceptourgoodwill,takesome coinfortheroadandbeonyourway,upintotheheavens”(Hwang 2005,p.234).
WhatIwanttostressinthisstudyof TheGuest isthattheologyneedstoreflectandbebased onconcretesociopoliticalconditionswherethecryofthesufferingisheard.Asaworkofliterature, TheGuest effectivelydrawsreadersclosetothosewhohavebeensufferingandwhosehopeisthus endangered.Thisunpleasantrealityposesachallengingquestionfortheology.JillGraperHernandez capturestheimportanceofdiscourseontheodicywhenshesays,“Foratopicthatmanyhavethought long-solved,theodicyinthe21st-centuryhasthusfarproducednovelapproaches,uncoverednew dilemmas,juxtaposeditselfwithotherphilosophicalandreligiousfields,listenedtonewvoices, andhasevenbeendonethroughuncommonmethodologies”(Hernandez 2018,p.1).Howcan present-daytheodicyenterintothethroesofsolidarityandofferacredibleaccountofhope?Motivated bythischallenge,thepresentpaperbeginswiththevoiceoftheforgottenvictimsof TheGuest toseek thetheologicalseedsofhopepotentiallyembeddedinthegroundofsufferingtoyieldforgiveness andreconciliation.
3. Han in Minjung Theology:AHermeneuticKeytoUnderstanding TheGuest
Letusexplorethethemeof TheGuest throughthelensoftheKoreanemotionalcomplexof han in Korean minjung theology,or“people’stheology.”“Whiletheterm minjung canbeliterallytranslatedas ‘people,’itrefersto‘thosewhoareoppressedpolitically,exploitedeconomically,alienatedsocially, andkeptuneducatedinculturalandintellectualmatters’”(Kim 2018,p.5). Minjung theologyaimsto interpretKorean han asameanstoinculturizebiblicalnotionsinthecontextofKoreanexperienceand history.Sincefeelingsof han lieattherootofKoreanidentity,exploringtheconceptisanindispensable keytounderstandingthesoulofthe han-riddenpeopleportrayedin TheGuest
Therearemanyapproachestounderstandingandtranslatingthecomplexmeaningoftheterm han thattheKoreanlanguagehasborrowedfromChinese.ThetranslatorDavidBannonhascited han asoneexampleof“hownotallconceptscanbetranslated”andnotedthat“itisoftenpreferable toleavetheforeignwordasisinanEnglishtranslation”(Bannon 2008).TheTaiwanesetheologian, C.S.Song, speaksof han inthebroadsenseofauniversalfeelingofanysoulexperiencingsuppression: “Therhythmofpassionwellingoutofrestlesssoulsintheworldofthedead,thewrongsdone tothemrequited. Han istherhythmofpassioncryingfromtheheartsofthosewhohavefallen victimtosocialandpoliticalinjustices”(Song 1986,pp.70–71).Theprominent minjung theologian Nam-dongSuhexplainsthat“han isadeepfeelingthatrisesoutoftheunjustexperiencesofthepeople.
‘Justindignation’maybeaclosetranslationof han, butitevokesarefinedemotionalyearningfor justicetobedone. Han isthesuppressed,amassed,andcondensedexperienceofoppressioncausedby mischieformisfortunesothatitformsakindof‘lump’inone’sspirit”(Suh 1983,p.58).Thetwo theologiansagreethat han isthecryofthesufferingforjusticethatcanbuildsolidarity.
Han hasthreeaspects.First, han representsthetransformingpowerthatmakespeoplecreate lifeandevolve.“Itisthenegativeanddestructiveenergyofpainandwoundedness,”writesKevin Considine,“transformedintoapositiveandconstructiveenergyexpressedinloveforselfandothers” (Considine 2014,pp.53–54).Itistheenergyofaffectionthattakestheformofsympathy,warmth,and friendshiptowardotherpeople. Han cancreatesolidarityamongpeoplepreciselybecausetheycan notonlysharethecommonexperienceofthisdeepfeelingbutalsoresistevilthroughsharing.
Second, han isanevilforcethatmakespeoplesufferandentanglestheminbondageandhatred. Han candrivepeopletovengeancebecauseofhatred.Of han’stheologicalmeaninginrelationtoKorean identity,ChungHyun-kyungsaysthat“han comesfromthesinfulinterconnectionsofclassism,racism, sexism,colonialism,neo-colonialism,andculturalimperialismwhichKoreanpeopleexperienceevery day”(Chung 1989,p.138).Whatkindofrelationshipmightexistbetween han andsin?“Sinproduces han, and han oftenproducesmoresin,whichproducesmore han inwhatbecomesaviciouscycle” (Joh 2006,p.102).Doesthesinfulnessbelongonlytotheoppressorand han onlytotheoppressed? “Sinand han arepartofboththeoppressorsandtheoppressed ... Mostoppressorshavebecome oppressorsbecauseoftheirexperienceof han ... Thesetwoaspects,sinand han, contributetoeach otherinacyclicalrelationship”(Joh 2006,p.102).Thereis,thus,anintertwinedchainoftheevilof han andsininaviciouscyclethatpreysonavictim.
Third,SandraSoHeeChiKimsees han asadualpositive–negativeforce:“Han isthewordfor sorrowinreactiontohistoricalinjusticeagainstthosewhoidentifyasKorean. Han isanexampleofhow historybecomesinternalizedinindividualswhileatthesametimecreatinghorizontalconnectionsof empathyandidentification”(ChiKim 2017,p.274).FornativeKoreans, han canentailaheartfelthope toovercomeconflictandbearfruitinhealingandeventuallymutualreconciliation.Theprominent SouthKoreannovelistParkKyong-niidentifies han asthesoulofaKorean:“Itmeansbothsadnessand hopeatthesametime.Youcanthinkof han asthecoreoflife,thepathwayleadingfrombirthtodeath. Literature,itseemstome,isanactof han andarepresentationofit Han,whichcomprisesboth sadnessandhope,isafeelinguniquetotheKoreanpeople”(Park 1994).Althoughsuchstirringsof han maynotbeuniquetoKoreans,theyserveKoreanswellbyallowingthemtoriskloveandpreserve hopeinthemidstofsuffering.
4.Revisiting TheGuest fromthePerspectiveof Han in Minjung Theology
Thequestionthenarisesofhow han, asunderstoodin minjung theology,givesrisetothehope ofthosewhoarevictimizedinthetragedyof TheGuest. Aswehavenoted,thenovelconsistsof twelvechaptersalignedwiththestructureofthetraditionalNorthKoreanshamanic Chinogwi ritual ofHwanghaeProvince,inwhich“twelveseparateroundstakeplacewherethedeadandtheliving simultaneouslycrossandrecrosstheboundariesbetweenthepastandthepresent”(Suleski 2007, p.292).Thisrichritualtraditionhelpsafamilywhohaslostalovedonetoreleasenegativecurrents of han andrestoretheirfracturedrelationshipsbyusingitspositivepotential.The“shamanistic gut [ritual]gavetheopportunityforthevoicelessghoststospeakouttheirstoriesof han. Thecommunity thenmustsolvethe han oftheghostcollectivelyeitherbyeliminatingthesourceofoppressionforthe ghostsorbycomfortingornegotiatingwiththeghosts”(Chung 1989,p.143).Throughthissacred ritualcalled Han-pu-ri (releasing han),boththevictimsandthepersonswhocausedtheirsufferingare mutuallyreconciledandcometoexperiencearenewalofhope.
Fromthetheologicalpointofviewof minjung theology,thisritualtransformationof han canbe aPaschalexperienceofpassingfromdeathtolifeandembracingrenewedlife.AndrewParkSung articulatesthisviewof han bypinpointingitsinitiallynegativecharacter:“Thecrucifixionsignifiesthe Han-pu-ri (resolving han)ofGodforthesufferingpeople.ThecrossisGod’sultimatenegationofthe
han oftheafflicted.TheresurrectionofChristasthenegationofthenegativeconnotesGod’sultimate affirmationofthe hanless natureofanewheavenandanewearth”(Park 1989,p.60).Inotherwords, theeventofcrucifixionconstitutesthepeakofGod’ssalvificwillintransforming han. ThecrossisGod’s manifestationofdivinelovefor han-embroiledhumanbeings;theresurrectionisGod’sexpressionof hopebeyondthebondsof han. Christ’sdeathandresurrectionthusembodythetransformingpower of han fromgrieftohopeandmutualsolidarity.Thisispossiblebecause han isnotlimitedtosinbut extendstoatransformativepotentialofexposingthedynamicsoftheviciouscycleandstructureof evil.Basically, han ishumansuffering.Christdoesnotbypasstheineffablepainofoursufferingbut choosestosharehumanweaknesstotheextentofbeingexposedto han.ThisisChrist’sownwayof love,sharinginvictims’suffering.Thistheologicalunderstandingof han withinthePaschalmysteryis mostimportant.Otherwise, han remainsinalimboofsimplyvaguehumanhope.
Bytellingthestoryofthe han ofboththevictimsandoppressorsinthebloodyeventsoftheNorth KoreanvillageofSinchon, TheGuest recreatestheexperienceinawaythatuncovers,shares,releases, andtransforms han intoasourceofsalvation.This han bringstolifethememoryofthehistorical slaughterinawaythatinvitesreaderstoshareinbearingthewoundednessinallofus.Whilelistening tothevoicesoftheghostsastheyventtheir han-filledmemories,Yosopsaystohimself,“Ah,finally they’reallthroughwiththeirstories.Butno,it’snotoveryet,Yosopthought”(Hwang 2005,p.102). ThegentlebutquitecoercivestrategyoftheliterarycharacterYosopbringsreadersfacetofacewith theunimaginablehistoricalrealityoftheforgottenvictims.Theirmemoriesengagereaderswiththe brutefactofsuffering.“Eventhen,though,evenifnobodyelseremembers,it’sstillthere,deepdown inyourheartofhearts”(Hwang 2005,p.205).Attheendofthenovel,theprotagonistshavetheirown transformativeexperienceof han.Oneoftheghostsofthedead,Yohan,says,“Finally,Iamrelieved of‘han’.FinallyIseemyfriends,andfinally,Icanstopwanderingthroughunknowndarkness.I’m off.Bewell,bothofyou”(Hwang 2005,p.225).Hethenpoeticallydescribeshisexperienceofthe wholeinnerjourney.“Silencedescended.Thedarknesswasgraduallywithdrawing;daybreakwas onitsway—outsidethewindow,beyondthedistinctshadowsofthemountainridge,themilkysky wasgrowingclearer”(Hwang 2005,p.225).Yosoptakestimeforreflectionandseeminglyinvites readerstoponderthesufferingthatthecitizensofSinchonhaveexperienced.“Hegazedathimselfas hewas,reflecteddimlyonthewindowpane.Itwasthefaceofthemostfamiliarmaninhiswhole world”(Hwang 2005,p.232).Hethusraisesaquestiontothereadersoftheirongoingwitnesstothe transformativeexperienceof han inwordsthatcalltomindwhatPaulsaysin1Corinthians:“For nowweseeinamirror,dimly,butthenwewillseefacetoface.NowIknowonlyinpart;thenIwill knowfully,evenasIhavebeenfullyknown.Andnowfaith,hope,andloveabide,thesethree;and thegreatestoftheseislove”(1Cor13:12–13NRSV).Onthewhole, TheGuest raisesYosop’squestion toreadersasitrecountshisandYohan’stransformativeexperienceof han throughwhichtheyare liberatedfromtheirsuffering.Asseenfromtheperspectiveof minjung theology,thesoulsofthe han-ridden minjung ofthenovelplaytheroleoftransvaluingtheirpreviousexperienceof han and revealinggenuinehopeforhumansalvation.
5. TheGuest fromthePerspectiveofTheodicyasRaisingtheQuestionofGodintheFace ofSuffering
Ithasbeensaidthatquestionsoftheologyshouldberelatedtotheworld’stragedies.“According toJohannesMetz,thequestionfortheologyafterthegenocideoftheJewsbytheNazisinWorldWarII washowtojustifyGod,aquestionstrictlyspeakingoftheodicy,thequestionforthetragedyofLatin Americaandothertragiclandsandpolesishowtojustifythehumanbeingswhohavebeenthecause ofsomuchtragedy,orwhohavebeenthe‘shufflingbystanders’wholookaway”(Crowley 2017,p.67).
MetzhimselfspeaksofhisconcernfortalkingaboutGodafterAuschwitzasfollows:“AsIbecame consciousofthesituationafterAuschwitz,theGod-questionforceditselfonmeinitsstrangest,most ancientandmostcontroversialform,asthetheodicyquestion;notinitsexistentialbut,toacertain degree,initspoliticalgarb:discourseaboutGodasthecryforthesalvationofotherswhosuffer
unjustly,ofthevictimsandvanquishedinourhistory”(Metz 1998,p.55).GustavoGutiérrez,mindful ofMetz’stheologicalreflectionsonhumansuffering,articulatesthequestionmoresharply:
Wemust,therefore,ask:HowcanwetalkaboutGodwithoutreferringtoourownage?
Morethanthat:Howcanwedoitwithouttakingintoaccountsituationsliketheholocaust inwhichGodseemstobeabsentfromimmensehumansuffering Howarewetospeakof theGodoflifewhencruelmurderonamassivescalegoesonin“thecornerofthedead”?
HowarewetopreachtheloveofGodamidsuchprofoundcontemptforhumanlife?How arewetoproclaimtheresurrectionoftheLordwheredeathreigns,andespeciallythedeath ofchildren,women,thepoor,indigenes,andthe“unimportant”membersofoursociety?
Theseareourquestions,andthisisourchallenge.(Gutiérrez 1987,pp.101–2)
Turningtomyownproject,IaskmyselfhowIcandotheologywithouttakingintoaccountasituation narratedin TheGuest,inwhichGodseemstobesoabsentfromimmensehumansuffering?
ForMetz,dangeristhestartingpointoftheology;authenticChristianhopebeginswithwhathe callsthe“dangerousmemory”ofJesusChrist(Metz 1998,p.47).BorrowinganideaofOrigen,herecalls whatJesussaid:“Whoeverisclosetome,isclosetofire;whoeverisfarfromme,isfarfromthe Kingdom”(Metz 1998,p.47).Inthisway,“itisdangeroustobeclosetoJesus,itthreatenstosetusafire, toconsumeus”(Metz 1998,pp.47–48).Metzthusunderstandsthattheperceptionofdangerdefines Christianidentity.HeexplainsthatthememoryofChristianfaithmeansthe“dangerousmemory”of Christ’sdeathandresurrection.“Memoriapassionis,mortis,etresurrectionisJesuChristi, thememoryof thecrucifiedLordstandsattheheartofthisfaith,aspecific memoriapassionis,whichformsthebasisof thepromiseofafreedomthatwillcomeforeveryone”(Metz 2007,p.107).
Inspiredbythisdangerousmemory,Christiansbear,inMetz’sschema,theeschatologicalhope “intheGodofJesusastheGodofthelivingandthedead,whocallsalltobesubjectsinGod’spresence” (Metz 2007,p.81).SincethenotionofdangerisChrist-centered,forMetzChristianhopeisrootedina radicalfollowingandimitationofJesus:“TofollowJesusmeansultimatelynotonlytoadmirehim,to takehimasamodel ... butsomethingmoreradicalandmoredangerous:puttinghimon,putting Christon”(Metz 1978,p.34).MetzattemptstomakeuseoftheIncarnateWordofGod,inparticular hisincarnationinthepovertyofthehumancondition,asaChristianmanifesto.Livingoutofthe remembranceofJesus’povertyinspiritimpliesthatbeingdeeplysensitivetohumansufferingas gainedthroughtheexperienceofhispassionanddeathisthetruepurposeofhumanexistence.
MetzinviteshisreaderstoencounterthefaceofthepassionofChristintheworldthroughthe faceofthesufferingofothers.Jesus’statement,“Justasyoudidittooneoftheleastofthesewhoare membersofmyfamily,youdidittome”(Matt25:40NRSV),providesthekeytoapproachingboththe passionofChristandthesufferingofothers.Jesusidentifieshimselfasoneoftheleastofhissisters andbrothers,andhisfigurecanbefoundhiddeninthepovertyofhisleastsistersandbrothers.Here, thepunchlineisthat“Jesuswasnostrangertothispovertyeither.Hewasabeggar,knockingon people’sdoors Hehadnoplacetolayhishead,notevenindeath—exceptagibbetonwhichto stretchhisbody”(Metz 1968,p.38).
JesusChristhimselfhasbeenwithusastheleastofhissistersandbrothers.Heunderstandsour difficultiesverywell,asisevidentbyhisidentifyingcharacteristics:hunger,thirst,livingasastranger oritinerant,nakedness,andimprisonment.Heisnotabsentatall,butratherispresentasonehidden intheneediestones.AsMetzputsit,“thesufferingofChrist”andthe“sufferingofothers”eventually leadto“thesufferingofChristinhumanity”(Prinz 2007,p.158).
Ingeneral,Metz’stheologyislocatedinthetheodicythatfocusesonsufferinghumanbeings. “Formethetheodicyquestion,thebasictheologicalquestion ... Ibeginnotwiththequestion, ‘WhathappenstomewhenIsuffer,whenIdie?’butratherwith,‘Whathappenstoyouwhenyousuffer, whenyoudie?”(DowneyandMetz 1999,p.137).Forhim,itistotallyengagedinthecurrentpolitical situationsofourneighbors:“TheonlyimageofGodisthefaceofourneighbor,whoisalsothesibling ofGod’sFirst-Born,ofGod’sownlikeness(2Cor4:4;Col1:15).Ourhumanneighbornowbecomesa
‘sacrament’ofGod’shiddenpresenceamongus,amediatorbetweenGodandhumanity”(Metz 1968, p.32).AwareofJesusChrist’shiddenpresence,livingforothersonourpartbringshope.Onthis basis,MetzmakesabridgefromthedangerousmemoryofJesustothequestionofChristianhope.
Christianhopeisessentiallydirectedtotheworldofourbrother,sincethishopefulfills itselfinlovefortheother,fortheleastofourbrothers.Onlyinthiskenosisofloveisdeath overcome.“Weknowthatwehavepassedoutofdeathintolife,becausewelovethebrethren” (1Jn3:14).TheChristianhopeentersintothepassionofdeathinthiskenosisoflovetothe leastofourbrothers.ThisistheimitationofJesus:hedidnotliveforhimself,butforus. Hopeisthislivingfor“theother.”(Metz 1969,p.97)
OnlyifwearewillingtoseeourneighborsasembodyingthepresenceofJesusChristcantherebe eschatologicalhopeforthefuturetogethernessofthelivingandthedead.
6.CultivatingPrayersofLamentation:Revisiting TheGuest fromMetz’sTheological UnderstandingofHope
IfMetzandtheprotagonistsof TheGuest weretomeetfordiscussion,whatwouldtheyhave tosaytooneanotherconcerningGodandhope?IfwecomparethequestionofGodin TheGuest withMetz’stheodicyquestion,wefindthatwhilesomevictimsinthenovelunderstandGodasone who“lookeddownonthisblazinghell,andheremainedsilent”(Hwang 2005,pp.142–43)inthe massacre,MetzwouldunderstandtheGodofthenovelassacramentallysufferinginthevictimsso thatallowstheirsufferingtobeforthem“sufferinguntoGod”(Metz 1998,p.42).Inadiscussion withElieWieselabouttheHolocaust,heexplainsthattheconceptof“sufferinguntoGod”points toa“particularformofomnipotence,namely,theomnipotenceandinvincibilityofGod’slove” (SchusterandBoschert-Kimmig 1999,p.47).Forexample,Wiesel’sHolocaustaccount Night tellsthe storyofayoungboy’sdeathbyhanging.ForWiesel,Godishangingonthecross(Wiesel 1969,p.76). AllwhosufferareasacramentofGod’spresence.Godseemsabsentbecauseheisinvisibleinthe midstofsuffering,butGodispresentbecauseheishangingonthecross.In TheGuest,theboyYosop takestheriskofhelpingtwocommunistgirlswhoareinanguishedflight.Metzwouldsaythat GodisomnipotentbecauseGodishiddenbutshouldbesoughtamongsuchpersonsinanguish whoareactuallyasacrament.Hecouldverywelladdwhathehasstatedinhisdiscussionwith Wiesel:“Afterall,atitsrootssufferingisanythingbutapowerfuloreventriumphantandsolidaristic co-suffering.Itisnotevensimplyasignandexpressionoflove;rather,itismuchmoreahorrifying signthatoneisnolongerabletolove.SufferingleadsintoavoidunlessitbesufferinguntoGod” (SchusterandBoschert-Kimmig 1999,p.48).
In TheGuest, thewifeofYosop’sbrotherincludesinherprayertheexclamation,“God,too, hassinned”(Hwang 2005,p.142).HerprayerwouldundoubtedlyremindMetzof“anincessant eschatologicalturningofourquestionsbackuntoGod”(Metz 1998,p.67).SincetheSinchonmassacre happened,shehasbeenstrugglingwiththelossofherdaughtersandbeingleftalonewithGodtobear herdespairandsorrow.ForMetz,however,prayerisnotaboutGodbuttoGod.Hesays,“Weshould faceuptoourfearsanddoubtsandconsiderinallseriousnessthenatureoftheGodtowhomwe directourprayers.Isthissilent,facelessGodnotanindifferentidol,aBaal,aMoloch?Ishenot anunbearabletyrantenthronedinanelevatedrealmtowhichourlongingsandsufferingshavenot entry?”(MetzandRahner 1980,p.21).
Actually,“God,too,hassinned”mayverywellbeaprayeroflamentationtoGod.Yohan’swifeis nottalkingaboutGodbuttalkingwithortoGod.LetusgobacktoYosop’sdialoguewithher.
Hissister-in-lawbowedherheadforamoment.Then,inasmallvoiceshesaid, “WouldyousayaprayerandreadfromtheBibleforme?”
“Evennow ... youstillbelieveinGod?”
Sheglancedquicklyinthedirectionofthebedroom.Hervoicehushed,shereplied,
“TherearetimeswhenIstillpray ... onceinawhile,whenIthinkofmyfather.”
“Whatkindof whatdoyousay inyourprayers?”
“God,too,hassinned.”(Hwang 2005,p.142)
ForMetz,“themostappropriatelinguisticformforthistypeofexperienceofGodandspeakingabout Godisthelanguageofprayer”(Losada-Sierra 2019,p.13).Particularly,thelanguageofprayerissuch acryoflament.“Thelanguageofprayerisfamiliarwiththepainfullyenigmaticcharacterofhuman existence,ofhowproblematicitisinviewofGod Itoftenendsinasinglecry,oreveninnothing butavoicelesssighofthecreature”(SchusterandBoschert-Kimmig 1999,p.43).
Nonetheless,KathleenO’ConnordescribesJeremiah’sLamentationsasaformofhopeinthat theafflictedoneisstillabletopraytoGod:“[ThebookofLamentations]prayshopefullybecauseit neitherdodgestruthnorletsGodescapeunchallengedintothecloudyheavens.Inthefaceofpainand suffering,thespeakersprayanyway.TheychallengeGodanddemandjustice”(O’Connor 2002,p.127).
ForMetz,appropriatebiblicalmodelsofprayerareJobashewrestleswithGodandJesusasheadmits fearbeforefacingthecrossintheGardenofGethsemane.Metzwouldsurelyseelamentationsand seemingblasphemyoftheprayerofYohan’swifeassuchamodelofprayer.
ForMetz,moreover,sufferinguntoGoddrawsustothesufferingofothers.Hehasraised arelevantquestion:“WasChristianitytooexclusivelyasin-sensitivereligionthatconsequently understooditselftoolittleasareligionsensitivetowardssuffering?”(Prinz 2007,p.80).InMetz’sview, “tobeafollowerofChrist,”“tobecalledforth,”“exodus,”“liftingupone’shand,”“conversionof theheart,”and“discipleship”arealmostsynonymous(Metz 2007,p.131).Hethusunderstandsthat notonlyisprayerofferedtoGodbutitalsoallowsentryintosufferers’heartsandbeingwiththem. Prayeris“mysticismofopeneyes,whichcommits ... toanincreasedawarenessofthesufferingofthe stranger”(Prinz 2007,pp.152–53).Metzfocusesprayeronparticipationinothers’sufferings.“Prayer aspleading,asaskingGodforGod,isanintrusion,anenteringintothemysticismofsufferingwith ‘theother,’ofcompassion.Itisnotthemysticismofdistantorclosedeyes,butratherthemysticismof openeyes”(Prinz 2007,p.155).Forhim,then,witnessingthedangerousmemoryofChristandprayer oflamentationaretwosidesofthesamecoin.
TheprayeroflamentationhelpsChristianstocultivatehopeforotherswitharenewedvision fortheReignofGod.IfMetz,beingsensitivetothesufferingofYohan’swifeandherprayer,would meetfordiscussiontogetherwiththeprotagonistsof TheGuest andpresent-dayChristians,hewould surelyencourageChristianstohavesolidaritywithherlifelongsufferingoutofservicetoChristian eschatologicalidealsofcontinuedhopeandoutofwitnesstothe memoriapassionis thathasthepower toleadtoahope-filledunionwiththePaschalmysteryofJesusChrist.
7. TheGuest fromthePerspectiveofIgnacioEllacuría’sUnderstandingofHopeasManifestedin theContemplationintheActionofJustice
Minjung theologyasarticulatedbyNam-dongSuhdiscussestheKoreancomplexof han insuch awayastoservepeoplewhoarepoliticallyoppressedoreconomicallyexploited,whileMetz’s mystical-politicaltheologyinvitesustofacethesufferingofthepoorinlightofChrist’spassion. Theformerappliesacontextualapproachtopeople’soppressionbyidentifyingtheirsociopolitical experiencewithBiblicaltexts.ThelatterfocusesonwhatJ.MatthewAshleyhascalled“anattemptto defineastancetowardtheworldandhistory,articulatedwithnewconceptualtools,forwhichthe concretecatastrophesofhistorywouldbeanirritating,interruptivepresenceinternaltofaithandfor whichtheologywouldbeconstitutionallyonthelookout”(Ashley 2003,p.123).Thequestionarises, then,astothepraxisofhowtotaketheoppressionandsufferingofcrucifiedpeopleonourselveson theonehandandhowtotakethemdownfromthecrossontheother.Thisisthekeyquestionraised byIgnacioEllacuríainhisanalysisofthe SpiritualExercises ofSt.Ignatius.ForEllacuría,Jesushas beendyingupuntilthepresentinthecrucifixionofordinarypeople;Christianhopeforthecrucified victimsoftheworldisfoundinJesus’resurrection.
AsEllacuríaseesit,the SpiritualExercises inviteustocontemplatethecompassionateincarnation oftheWordinthisworldofcrucifiedpeopleandasconcreteChristianpraxistotakeastandagainst theongoingcrucifixionbroughtaboutbyunjustsocialstructures.AsLouisJ.PuhltranslatesIgnatius’s text,thethreePersonsoftheTrinitysay,“Letusworktheredemptionofthehumanrace”(Puhl 1968, p.50).AsEllacuríahimselfdescribestheeventoftheWordbecomingman,“ItincarnatesthatinJesus whichmakestheFathervisible”(Ellacuría 2010,p.231).However,God’spresenceisnotlimitedto God’ssoleincarnationalendeavor;itisopenandneedshumancooperationwithGod.“Ahuman presenceandanhistoricalactionisalwaysnecessarytomakeGodpresent”(Ellacuría 2010,p.219). EllacuríathuschallengesthosewhowanttofollowJesusChristtomakethecompassionateloveof GodpresentbygivingwitnesstoGod’spresenceinthecrucifiedworld.“Thecrucifiedpeopleare thelinkingforceamonghisconceptsofdiscipleship,martyrdom,andoppression”(Hogue 2018,p.4). Indeed,EllacuríawassofaithfultobeadiscipleofJesustoliveanddiefortheoppressedeventothe pointofmartyrdom.
Tohelprealizethischallenge,EllacuríaurgesexercitantstoapplywhatSt.Ignatiuscalls“the compositionoftheplace”totheirparticularhistorical-politicalcontextofthecrucifiedpeople.Ellacuría assertsthatthe SpiritualExercises providethetheologicalplaceforsuchhistoricization:“Theypave thewayforitsreceptionbasedonone’sownsituation.Whatismore,theyhistoricizethiswordof Godinsofarastheyturntohistorical,personal,andcircumstantialsignstoenablethatwordtobe discoveredintheconcrete”(Ellacuría 2010,p.208).Similarly,LatinAmericantheologyhasurgedthat exercitantsapplythiskindofcompositionofplacetotheirpraxis.AsEllacuríasays,“Thethirdworld demandsthatweincarnatetheexperienceofthe Exercises rightnow,anditoffersusthebestconditions fordoingso”(Ashley 2010,p.193).ThisisawayforhumanbeingstomaketheloveofGodexpressed inthedivineIncarnationpresentnow.AsAshleyexplains,bydeepeningthiscompositionoftheplace urgedbyEllacuría,weare“puttingourselvesintouchwiththerealityofJesus”manifestedthrough thecrucified(Ashley 2000,p.36).
AccordingtoEllacuría,thepraxisofconversionforotherscanberealizedthroughaconsideration ofsininthefirstweekofthe SpiritualExercises.St.Ignatiusinvitesexercitantstoconversewiththe crucifiedChrist,asking,“WhathaveIdoneforChrist?WhatamIdoingforChrist?WhatoughtIto doforChrist?”(Puhl 1968,p.28).ForEllacuría,thiscolloquyplaysanimportantroleinthe Exercises: “Onlyopenyourheart,”Ellacuríasays,“yourChristianheart,andaskyourselvesthethreequestions IgnatiusofLoyolaputtohimselfashestoodinfrontofthecrucifiedworld” (Ellacuría 2010,p.241). Thecolloquyhelpstheexercitantstoperceivetherealityofthesuffereraswellastherealityofthe WordofGod.Ellacuríaarticulatesfurthertherealityofthecrucifiedbyparaphrasingthequestion: “WhathaveIdonetocrucifythem?WhatamIdoinginordertouncrucifythem?Whatought Itodosothatthispeoplewillberaised?”(Burke 2004,p.26).Themoredeeplytheexercitants realizethatcrucifiedpeoplearehangingonthecrossasthecrucifiedChristinthepresentreality, themoreeagerlydotheyrespondactivelytothatsuffering.Itispreciselyinthisplace(lugar)thatthe Exercises leadtheexercitantstobeonewithcrucifiedhumanbeingsthroughthelensofthecrucified Christ.AsKevinBurkehasstressed,“Ellacuríaobservesthatanyonewhoreflectsasabelieveronthe mangledrealityofthiscrucifiedpeoplemustaskwhatitimpliesregardingsinandthenecessityof salvation”(Burke 2004,p.183).ThosewhowanttofollowJesusChristneedtodeepenintheirheart commiserationoftheplightofcrucifiedvictimsasthesalvificworkofthecrucifiedChrist.
AsJonSobrinohaspointedout,thefundamentalquestionEllacuríaraisesisthatofservice forothers:“WhatshouldIdotoseekGod’swillinallthingsandcarryitout?”(Sobrino 2006, p.4).ThisquestionchallengesEllacuríatoconfronttakingcrucifiedpeopledownfromtheircrosses. Thequestionisaboutpraxis:actionforthe“serviceforothers”whogive“meaningtohislife,andwho taughthimhowtoserve”(Sobrino 2006,p.5).Ellacuríaexaminesthequestionfurtherintermsofthe Jesuitidealofcontemplationinaction:“Contemplationrequiresspecialmomentsinwhichtogatherup andconsciouslydeepentheconfrontationbetweenthewordofGodheardinrevelationandtheurgent problemsthatcomefromrealitythroughthemediationofcenteredreflection” (Ellacuría 1993,p.286).
Hemeansthatasonegetsagripontheinternalknowledgeoftherealityoftheunjuststructureofsociety fromtheappropriatestanceofthecolloquy,onecantrulybecontemplativeinaction.ForEllacuría, contemplationmeans“therealpossibilityofencounteringGodincreationandthepossibilityof recoveringcreationasthepresenceofGod”(Ashley 2006,p.155).
Themainquestioniswhatkindofactioncanleaveroomfortruecontemplation.Ellacuríafinds thereplyinthehistoricalworkofChrist:“Contemplationwillnotbetrueunlessitisrealizedwithin thatactionthatisreallydemandedbythehistoricalfollowingofthehistoricalJesus”(Ashley 2010, p.200).Truecontemplationcannotbeseparatedfromthe lugar ofcrucifiedhumanbeingsandservice tothem.Therefore,asAshleyhasnoted,contemplationinactionforEllacuríais“contemplationinthe actionofjustice”(Ashley 2006,p.154).Whenweresisttheunjuststructuresofsociety,wecanfind Godinourlabor.AsEllacuríahimselfsays,“WhatisinvolvedisacontemplationofGodinthings thatgiveswaytocontemplationinactionwiththingsinwhichGodbecomespresenttotheperson atwork,andthepersonmakesGodpresentandbecomespresenttoaGodatwork”(Ashley 2006, p.155).Contemplationinactionthussignifiesamutualrelationship.Inplaceswherehumanneeds areurgentandserious,Godisaskingforourcooperationas comigo.Ithasbeensaidthat“Ignatius usestheSpanishword‘comigo,’meaning‘withme.’Itisanintimateword.Weareworkingalongside Christ.OurbeingwithChristprecedesbutincludesourworkingwithChrist.InordertobeJesus,we findourselvesworkingalongsidehim”(Fleming 2008,pp.68–69).Thismeaningofcontemplationin actionbringsitintorelationshipwithsufferinghumanbeingsinamissionofservingthembybringing themdownfromtheircrosses.
8.SufferingisaCalltoConversion:Revisiting TheGuest fromEllacuría’sPointofView
In TheGuest, YosopdepartsfromtheUnitedStates,wherehenowlives,togotohishometown inNorthKorea,theplaceofothers’crucifixion.Thispilgrimageenableshimtobeincarnatedinthe historicalsiteoftheSinchonmassacre.Duringthejourney,hisencounterswithlivinganddeadvictims drawhimtoconfrontbothpersonalandstructuralsin.Inthecourseoftheshamanicritualthere, twoghostsofvictimsandperpetratorstellhimwhatreallyhappenedinthatplace:“Wethought we’dcomebyandclarifyafewthings”(Hwang 2005,p.109).Throughtheireyes,readersrevisitthe historicalevent.InEllacuríanterms,thisisa lugar ofthethirdworldinwhichGod’shiddenpresence canbeunearthed.
Yosop’sprayerexpressesthefactthatthetragicplaceofSinchonis,nonetheless,ahomeofsouls: “OurFatherinHeaven,Ihavereturnedtomyhome ... Ihaveseenwithmyowneyesthatthisland, too,isstillahomeforsouls.Thouhastnotforsaken—Iknowthisnow.Please,Lord,helpusto notresentthesufferingwecausedeachotherindayslongpast.Helpustoforgiveoneanother” (Hwang 2005,p.143).HisprayercallsattentiontothefactthatGod’ssalvificgracehasbrokeninto humansinfulness.AsBurkehassaidofEllacuría’sunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweensin andgrace,“Withtheeyesoffaith,thebelievingcommunitythusgraspsthatthepoorthemselves, impoverishedandoppressedbyinjustice,havebecomethepreferredlocusofbenevolenceandgrace, ofGod’sfaithfullove”(Burke 2004,p.182).ForEllacuría,thecontemplationtoattainloveofthe SpiritualExercises pointstothefactthattheworldcontinuestobethe lugar whereGodispresenteven thoughthereisstillsinintheworld(Ellacuría 2010,p.236).
Thequestionremains,whatisone’sownspecificplaceinaparticularcontext,theplaceof crucifiedpeoplewherethecalltoconversionneedstobeasked?ForYosop,itisSinchon.ForEllacuría, explainsAshley,the SpiritualExercises allowonetohavea“theologicalexperience”inwhich“sheorhe continuallydiscernsandchoosestoincarnateherselforhimselfactivelyinhistory,therebycontinuing thepresenceofJesusinhistorybyfollowinghim—whichistosay,by‘historicizing’God’ssaving presence”(Ashley 2010,p.197). TheGuest recountsnotonlythatYosopallowshisbrotherYohanto becomereconciledwiththelivinganddeadvictimsbutalsothathehimselfisinturntransformed byencounteringthesufferersinthatparticular lugar.ForEllacuría,encounteringforgottenhistorical realitiesofsindemandsaconversionofthehumanheart.ThewifeofYohanexemplifiessucha
conversionwhensheshowscompassionforboththevictimsandperpetratorsofthemassacre:“The peopleyourbrotherkilled—well,theyallhadsouls.Theyweren’tSatan.RyuYohanwasn’tSatan, either.Hisfaithwastwisted,that’sall.Iknownow”(Hwang 2005,p.109).AsBurkehasnoted, Ellacuríasaysthat“giventhehistoricalrealityofindividualsandpeoples,compassionisveryoftenthe forminwhichfaith,hope,andlovepresentthemselves;amercyandacompassionthatispreferential towardsthemostweak,butwhichextendsitselfuniversallytoallhumansbecauseallhumanbeings arethechildrenofsinand,atthesametime,theparentsofsin”(Burke 2004,p.191).Inthisvein, thecharacterAhnSung-manin TheGuest rebutsYosop,whothinksofeveryoneasinnocentofsin: “Showmeonesoulwhowasn’ttoblame!”andthenprays,“Iprayforusall,foroursalvation” (Hwang 2005,p.162).EllacuríawouldunderstandhisprayerasanexpressionofhopeinGod’s poweroftheresurrectionthatneedstobesoughtagaintoday,notsimplyasapassivetransformative experience,butasanenhancedpersonalcommitmenttothegreaterloveandserviceofothers.
Nonetheless,Yosopplaystheimportantroleofvindicatingthedignityofthevictimsandeven hopingforreconciliationbybringingtorituallifetheircollectivememoryof han.Hehearsthe criesoftheghosts,onebemoaning,“Wehateourselves”(Hwang 2005,p.224),andanother,earlier, lamentingthattheyare“stuckwanderingaroundthisworld”(Hwang 2005,p.109).Thenovel statesthat“Yosopknewonlytoowellthattheirtestimonialswereallfabrications”(Hwang 2005, p.99),butitmakestheexpressionsofthevictims’memoriesaudibleandtheforgottenfiguresofthe survivorsvisible.ThecharacterofYosopservesnotonlytocomforttheirsoulsbutalsotounveilthe sociopoliticalstructuresofsinbyexposingthesinfulideologicalinvestmentonthepartoftheSinchon villagers,communistandChristian.AsYoungjuRyuhaspointedout,byfollowingYosop’saccount, readersponderthefactthatthetragedyoftheKoreanWarhasbeencontinuinginthedivisionof theKoreanPeninsula,onwhichallpeoplearestillvictimizedandremainunreconciled(Ryu 2015, p.659).Thepublicationof TheGuest hasservedtodrawtheattentionofthepeopleofSouthKoreato thecrucifixionoftheirbrothersandsistersyearsagoinSinchon.InEllacuría’stheologicalschema, thenovelcanservetomovepeopletorephrasetheIgnatiancolloquyintheirsituation:“WhathaveI donetocrucifythevictimsoftheKoreanWarandperpetratethedivisionofKorea?WhatamIdoing touncrucifythispeopleanddismantlethesinfulstructuresofthepresentColdWaronthePeninsula? WhatoughtIdosothatthispeoplecanberaised?”ThisistheChristianmission,andmoreimportantly, theChristiancouragetohope.
9.Conclusions
HowcanwepracticesoundtheologybasedonalivedexperienceofGod’scontinuedrelationto humansuffering?HowcantheologynurturetheChristianhorizonofhopeinthemidstofsufferingfor bothvictimsandperpetrators?TheKoreantheologianJungYoungLeehasproposedanaptanswer: “Theologybeginswithmylife,butmylifeisrelatedtothelivesofothers.Thus,‘Iam’isalways also‘weare’”(Lee 1995,p.8).Inlinewiththis,thepresentauthorunderscoresthatsoundtheology encompassesChristianhopetogetherwithallthepeopleofGodbasedon oori (our)experienceandyet notlimitedtowhatweourselveshaveexperienced,butaswemutuallylearnandteachaswemove togethertowardhopeandsolidarity.Fromacircularpointofview,byexploring TheGuest,mystoryis ourstoryandourstoryisalsomystory.Weareallconnectedwithoneanotherandinterdependent. FromtheperspectiveofwhatIwouldliketocallour“webofrelationshipsinGod,”soundtheology helpsustofeelcompassionforthosewhoaresufferingandreceivefromtheminturnthegiftofhope.
However,wearealltoovulnerabletoavertingourattentionandclosingoureyesinthefaceof thesufferingworld.ThepassageofMatthew25:40thatMetzreferstoisagoodantidotetoaworld filledwithtemptationstolosehope:“Justasyoudidittooneoftheleastofthesewhoaremembersof myfamily,youdidittome.”ForMetz,ashereflectsonthesewordsofJesus,peoplewhoaresuffering remindusofChristhangingonthecross,andChristonthecrossremindsusofthepeoplewhoare oppressedandrepressed.ForEllacuría,borrowingtheschemaofdeathandresurrectionfromthe SpiritualExercises,crucifiedvictimsrepresentthecrucifiedChristwhereGodishiddenandyetpresent.
ThetheologicalreflectionsofthesetwotheologiansinviteustodeepenpraxissoastofollowJesus Christbyidentifyingwithandcaringfor“thecrucifiedpeople”sufferingallovertheworldhereand now.AsPopeFrancishasputit,“Jesus,theevangelizerparexcellenceandtheGospelinperson, identifiesespeciallywiththelittleones(cf.Matt25:40).ThisremindsusChristiansthatwearecalled tocareforthevulnerableoftheearth”(PopeFrancis 2013b).Godisomnipotentintheleastofour brothersandsisterswhoarea“sacrament”ofGod’shiddenpresence,thebodyofChristamongus.
Compassionproduceshope-chargedpraxis.Metzrightlysays,“Onlyifwearewillingtosee ourselveswiththeeyesof‘theother,’as‘theother’seesandjudgesus,willtherebehopeforapath ofpoliticalunderstandingandreconciliation”(Prinz 2007,pp.161–62).Thiskindofcompassion nurturesthecourageofhope,inEllacuría’swords,“asthehumanperson’sopennessandmovement towardafuturetobemade,andashopeinapromise,madedefinitiveinJesus,thattheReignof Godwillcomebecauseinsomewayitisalreadyhere”(Ellacuría 2013,p.284).Ifweunderstand compassionas“theeyesof‘theother,’” Jeong,aKorean expressionofcompassion,shedsgreatlightonthis movement oftheheart.“Jeong embodiestheinvisibletracesofcompassioninrelationships”and“Jeong isthepowerembodiedinredemptiverelationships”(Joh 2006,p.xxi).Thiskindofcompassionate relationshipwithcrucifiedpersonsmovesustocommunicatewithourhearts,manifestinglove indeeds,andgeneratinghopeforthem.EllacuríahasidentifiedthetaskofaCatholicuniversity withrelationtotheIgnatiancolloquy:“Onlyopenyourhumanheart,yourChristianheart,andask yourselvesthethreequestionsIgnatiusofLoyolaputtohimselfashestoodinfrontofacrucified world.”(SobrinoandEllacuría 1990,pp.150–51).Applyingthiscounseltotheimmensityofhuman suffering,onecanrealizethatJesusChrist,hiddeninthepresentreality,invitesustoseekHimamong thecrucifiedandthatforthefulfillmentofHissalvificplan,HeiswaitingforChristians’praxisin responsetothispresentreality.Wherethereiscompassion,therethenariseshope-filledsolidarity.
Funding: ThisresearchwassupportedbySogangUniversityResearchandBusinessDevelopmentFoundation. ConflictsofInterest: Theauthordeclaresnoconflictofinterest.
References
Ashley,J.Matthew.2000.IgnacioEllacuríaandtheSpiritualExercisesofIgnatiusLoyola. TheologicalStudies 61: 16–39.[CrossRef]
Ashley,J.Matthew.2003. Interruptions:Mysticism,PoliticsandTheologyintheWorkofJohannBaptistMetz.Notre Dame:UniversityofNotreDamePress.
Ashley,J.Matthew.2006.ContemplationintheActionofJustice:IgnacioEllacuríaandIgnatianSpirituality.In LoveThatProducesHope:TheThoughtofIgnacioEllacuría.EditedbyKevinF.BurkeandRobertLassalle-Klein. Collegeville:LiturgicalPress,pp.144–65.
Ashley,J.Matthew.2010.AContemplativeundertheStandardofChrist:IgnacioEllacuría’sInterpretationof IgnatiusofLoyola’sSpiritualExercises. Spiritus:AJournalofChristianSpirituality 10:192–204.
Bannon,David.2008.UniqueKoreanCulturalConceptsinInterpersonalRelations. TranslationJournal 12. Availableonline: https://translationjournal.net/journal/43korean.htm (accessedon1April2020).
Burke,KevinF.2004. TheGroundBeneaththeCross:TheTheologyofIgnacioEllacuría.Washington,DC:Georgetown UniversityPress.
ChiKim,SandraSoHee.2017.KoreanHanandthePostcolonialAfterlivesof“TheBeautyofSorrow”. Korean Studies 41:253–79.[CrossRef]
Chung,HyunKyung.1989.Han-pu-ri:DoingTheologyfromKoreanWomen’sPerspective.In WeDaretoDream: DoingTheologyasAsianWomen.EditedbyVirginiaFabellaandSunAiLeePark.HongKong:AsianWomen’s ResourceCentreforCultureandTheology,pp.135–47.
Considine,KevinP.2014.KimChi-Ha’sHanAnthropologyandItsChallengetoCatholicThought. Horizons 41: 49–73.[CrossRef]
Crowley,PaulG.2017. TheUnmooredGod:BelievinginaTimeofDislocation.NewYork:OrbisBooks. Downey,JohnK.,andJohannBaptistMetz.1999. Love’sStrategy:ThePoliticalTheologyofJohannBaptistMetz EditedbyJohnK.Downey.Harrisburg:TrinityPressInternational.
Religions 2020, 11,463
Ellacuría,Ignacio.1993.TheHistoricityofChristianSalvation.In MysteriumLiberationis:FundamentalConceptsof LiberationTheology.EditedbyIgnacioEllacuríaandJonSobrino.NewYork:OrbisBooks,pp.251–89.
Ellacuría,Ignacio.2010.ALatinAmericanReadingofthe SpiritualExercises ofSaintIgnatius”. Spiritus:AJournal ofChristianSpirituality 10:205–42.
Ellacuría,Ignacio.2013. EssaysonHistory,Liberation,andSalvation.EditedbyMichaelEdwardLee.NewYork: OrbisBooks.
Fleming,DavidL.2008. WhatisIgnatianSpirituality? Chicago:LoyolaPress. Gutiérrez,Gustavo.1987. OnJob:God-talkandtheSufferingoftheInnocent.NewYork:OrbisBooks. Han,Kang.2017.WhiletheU.S.TalksofWar,SouthKoreaShudders. TheNewYorkTimes.October7.Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/opinion/sunday/south-korea-trump-war.html (accessedon 1July2020).
Hernandez,JillGraper.2018.IntroductionofSpecialIssue“Theodicy”. Religions 9:273.[CrossRef]
Hogue,W.2018.TheIdealofaRadicalChristianIntellectual. Religions 9:277.[CrossRef]
Hwang,Sok-yong.2005. TheGuest.TranslatedbyKyung-JaChun,andMayaWest.NewYork:SevenStoriesPress. Joh,WonheeAnne.2006. HeartoftheCross:APostcolonialChristology.Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress. Kim,A.E.2018. Minjung TheologyinContemporaryKorea:LiberationTheologyandaReconsiderationof SecularizationTheory. Religions 9:415.[CrossRef]
Lee,JungYoung.1995. Marginality:TheKeytoMulticulturalTheology.Minneapolis:FortressPress.
Losada-Sierra,M.2019.MemoryandHistory:TheOvercomingofTraditionalTheodicyinLevinasandMetz. Religions 10:657.[CrossRef]
Metz,JohannBaptist.1968. PovertyofSpirit.TranslatedbyJohnDrury.NewYork:PaulistPress.
Metz,JohannBaptist.1969. TheologyoftheWorld.TranslatedbyWilliamGlen-Doepel.London:HerderandHerder. Metz,JohannBaptist.1978. FollowersofChrist:TheReligiousLifeandtheChurch.TranslatedbyThomasLinton. NewYork:PaulistPress.
Metz,JohannBaptist.1998. APassionforGod:TheMystical-PoliticalDimensionofChristianity.TranslatedbyJ. MatthewAshley.NewYork:PaulistPress.
Metz,JohannBaptist.1997.JohannBaptistMetz.In HowIHaveChanged:ReflectionsonThirtyYearsofTheology TranslatedbyJohnBowden.EditedbyJürgenMoltmann.London:SCMPress,pp.31–36.
Metz,JohannBaptist.2007. FaithinHistoryandSociety:TowardaPracticalFundamentalTheology.TranslatedbyJ. MatthewAshley.NewYork:HerderandHerder.
Metz,JohannBaptist,andKarlRahner.1980. TheCouragetoPray.TranslatedbyErmutigungzumGebet. NewYork:Crossroad.
O’Connor,KathleenM.2002. LamentationsandtheTearsoftheWorld.NewYork:OrbisBooks.
Park,AndrewSung.1989.TheologyofHan. QuarterlyReview 9:48–62.
Park,Kyong-ni.1994.TheFeelingsandThoughtsoftheKoreanPeopleinLiterature:KeynoteSpeechat aSpecialColloquiumOrganizedbytheUniversityofParis7andtheKoreanArtsandFoundation. Availableonline: http://www.koreantranslation.com/REPOSITORY/HanTheSoulofKoreanLiterature/tabid/ 1557/Default.aspx (accessedon10March2020).
PopeFrancis.2013a.VisittoLampedusa.HomilyofHolyFatherFrancis(8July2013).Available online: http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/homilies/2013/documents/papa-francesco_20130708_ omelia-lampedusa.html (accessedon31August2020).
PopeFrancis.2013b.ApostolicExhortationEvangeliiGaudium(24November2013).Availableonline: http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazioneap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html (accessedon1May2020).
PopeFrancis.2018.GeneralAudience.St.Peter’sSquare(25April2018).Availableonline: http://www.vatican.va/ content/francesco/en/audiences/2018/documents/papa-francesco_20180425_udienza-generale.html (accessed on3February2020).
Prinz,JuliaD.E.2007. EndangeringHungerforGod:JohannBaptistMetzandDorotheeSölleattheInterfaceofBiblical HermeneuticandChristianSpirituality.Berlin:LIT.
Puhl,LouisJ.1968. TheSpiritualExercisesofSt.Ignatius:BasedontheStudiesintheLanguageoftheAutograph Chicago:LoyolaUniversityPress.
Ryu,Youngju.2015.TruthorReconciliation? TheGuest andtheMassacreThatNeverEnds. Positions 23:633–64. [CrossRef]
Schuster,Ekkehard,andReinholdBoschert-Kimmig.1999. HopeAgainstHope:JohannBaptistMetzandElieWiesel SpeakOutontheHolocaust.TranslatedbyJ.MatthewAshley.NewYork:PaulistPress.
Sobrino,Jon.2006.IgnacioEllacuría,theHumanBeingandtheChristian:TakingtheCrucifiedPeopleDown fromtheCross.In LoveThatProducesHope:TheThoughtofIgnacioEllacuría.EditedbyKevinF.Burkeand RobertLassalle-Klein.Collegeville:LiturgicalPress,pp.1–67.
Sobrino,Jon,andIgnacioEllacuría.1990. CompanionsofJesus:TheJesuitMartyrsofElSalvador.NewYork: OrbisBooks.
Song,C.S.1986. TheologyfromtheWombofAsia.NewYork:OrbisBooks.
Suh,Nam-dong.1983.TowardsaTheologyofHan.In MinjungTheology:PeopleastheSubjectsofHistory.Edited byCommissiononTheologicalConcernsoftheChristianConferenceofAsia.NewYork:OrbisBooks, pp.55–69.
Suleski,Ronald.2007.TheGuest(review). Azalea:JournalofKoreanLiterature&Culture 1:289–93. Wiesel,Elie.1969. Night.TranslatedbyStellaRodway.NewYork:AvonBooks.
© 2020bytheauthor.LicenseeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland.Thisarticleisanopenaccess articledistributedunderthetermsandconditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution (CCBY)license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).